That is in center to all questions ... even to all TB ... even to all Buddhism

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

Nemo wrote:Having read the article he sounds very young. Talking about living a good life by chasing money and saying "Samsara is beautiful". Doesn't he have any older wiser friends?

I can say he will think completely differently when he is 40. I have no idea about his credentials but are you sure he is the right Tulku?

He is absolutely the right Tulku I have a picture of his predecessor and saw him as a very young boy and it was EASY to see the old man shinning out of the little boys eyes , its definitely him . Yesterday after reading this thread I was thinking maybe Kalu has come here this life with a New purpose , he may very well have a mission for this life that requires him to have these experiences . It must be difficult to spend your life in the public eye . Yeshe

YesheDron'May wrote:He is absolutely the right Tulku I have a picture of his predecessor and saw him as a very young boy and it was EASY to see the old man shinning out of the little boys eyes , its definitely him .

Nirmanakaya is différent, there is nothing to be seen in the eye or anything else ... that's a projection of your own mind. Be happy with it.

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

awildeb wrote:Your saying my article is 'crap' doesn't offend me. However, that's not an argument, more an emotional insult. If that's the effect that Buddhism and your root lama has had on your mind then I feel sorry for you.

Save your pity for yourself. I explained my assessment of your article. Like it, lump it or ignore it. As for my root lama, at least he does not effect my mind to the degree of making completely unfounded accusations. Is that what your root lama asked of you?

As for being 'slapped with a lawsuit', I say go ahead sue me. There is nothing in the article I am not willing to defend in a court. I have never accused Kalu Rinpoche of lying or being a fraud either. That's just your kneejerk reaction/projection to the title. The title was my idea, not the editors, but it was representative of the subject of the whole article, which is not just about Kalu Rinpoche, but about spiritual teachers in general who display apparently dubious conduct, ethics etc. and what advice students can follow in such a situation. It wasn't just about Kalu's allegations either but about his conduct and posts on social media as well.

The title was "Enlightened Tantric Yogi? Or Abusive, Capitalist Con Artist?", so one may excuse my knee-jerk reaction to such sensationalist crap, especially since you do not even deal with or justify the accusation. And you are right, the title is representative of the subject of the whole article: unfounded sensationalism. And if, as you claim, the article was not an analysis of Kalu Rinpoche but spiritual teachers in general then it should have been plural and does not require the first question mark, there should be a comma in its place.

As for sueing you, why would I bother? Kalu Rinpoche is not my teacher and the article is not about me, so...

I read the article twice. Not because it was interesting or relevant, but because I thought I may have missed something since the title had no relation whatsoever with the content.

Why do you seek to limit my freedom of speech in any case? What are you so fearful of? That someone might agree with me and question the motivation and conduct of your teacher as well? That's called freedom of expression my friend. Something many people have fought long and hard for.

Who's limiting your freedom of speech? You wrote an article lacking credence and evidence and some people here criticised it. Why are you being so defensive? Instead of lashing out why don't you just provide evidence and convince us of the veracity of your opinion? Anyway, sensationalist slander is not covered by freedom of speech. And what does my teacher have to do with your article? Go and ask your teacher if what you did was correct or not. If what you wrote was true or not. I discussed this issue with my teacher and... well, none of your business!

The accused do deserve and should be able to demand a right to respond and defend themselves as well. If you had been accused of such a thing on Youtube, wouldn't you seek to defend yourself? Whether or not the accuser is wealthy, powerful and a Tibetan lama. This is what justice is about, all are equal before the eyes of the law. It does't matter whether you accept his word on faith or not. That's not just or fair, sorry. That's not calling anyone a liar, just demanding justice for all.

Who accused you of what? Are you representing one of the accused?

Let's not forget his is not just the accused who have been put on public trial without a defence, this is an allegation has put the Tibetan monastic system itself on trial without a defence too, watch Kalu Rinpoche's video again, for his comments about the tulku system etc. The responses on social media and internet by westerners stating that the Tibetan monastic system is as bad as the Catholic Church etc. are outrageous and potentially slanderous too. Where are the public statements from the Dalai Lama, the 17th Karmapa, Tai Situ Rinpoche etc. on Kalu's allegations? Isn't their silence saying something? Why are you not demanding that they respond/support Kalu? Could it be because they don't agree with his Youtube method of dealing with this either?Buddhism is not a cult based on blind faith, your comments make it sound like one. Please don't for all our sakes.

Why don't you go ask the Dalai Lama, the 17th Karmapa, Tai Situ Rinpoche etc...? If they are silent on the issue why don't you take it as an example of what you should be doing? You are smarter than them?PS The other thing that strikes me is that every time somebody comments negatively on your article your immediate response is to ask them if they read the whole article. I mean it's only a page long for crying out loud. Of course they read it. As a matter of fact the only positive comment you have received was from one of the editorial staff.

The problem is suppression of the sexual energies. Thats a huge topic in itself, but its not just in Buddhism, its also a problem in Catholicism. In many cases rapists and pedophiles are also coming from this problem, they are unfulfilled for various reasons, and the sexual energies end up manifesting in inappropriate ways. Something Osho once said stuck with me, he said "Sexual energy must move upwards or downwards, either way its going to move". In essence, if you can't transmute it, don't suppress it.

wisdom wrote:The problem is suppression of the sexual energies. Thats a huge topic in itself, but its not just in Buddhism, its also a problem in Catholicism.

Yeah, I'm not sure that any religious tradition has managed to deal with human sexuality in an entirely realistic or healthy manner. Consequently it's not terribly surprising that we see representatives of those same traditions embroiled in scandal time and time again. Kind of a bummer...

reg wrote:Yeah, I'm not sure that any religious tradition has managed to deal with human sexuality in an entirely realistic or healthy manner.

Greek Orthodox Christianity has a, mainly, non-celibate clergy. It's only after a certain level in the non-monastic hierarchy that one needs to be celibate. Even then one is not required to live in retreat/monastic dwellings. Anyway, by the time you get to advance that far up the hierarchy sex starts to become a bit of a non-issue.

Homosexuality in the monastaries is an issue, but all the monks are adult aged so...

"Sona, before you became a monk you were a musician". Sona said that was true. So the Buddha said, "As a musician which string of the lute produces a pleasant and harmonious sound. The over-tight string?" "No," said Sona, "The over-tight string produces an unpleasant sound and is moreover likely to break at any moment." "The string that is too loose?" Again, "No, the string that is too loose does not produce a tuneful sound. The string that produces a tuneful sound is the string that is not too tight and not too loose."

skillful klesha wrote:I have never met a tulku that was NOT extremely screwed up.It must be horrendous karma from "enlightened" practice in past lives.

What? This is an outrageous statement. I have personally never met a recognized, trained tulku who was screwed up. They may exist. I do know of at least two screwed up tulkus, both recognized but neither trained. Significantly both were recognized as adults and were not engaged in nor had previously received anything approximating a serious Buddhist education or had engaged in rigorous retreat.

Tarring tulkus in general with your agenda or unfortunate experience is an error.

I never did say all tulkus. You must have wax in your eyes, I just said all that I have met.... which was only four. Thinking back one was actually okay but he spent a third of his life in prison so he understood a bit of humility. The worst was recognized as a baby and always had Tibetan khenpo tutors.Gossip is not always idle speech, you can learn a lot from the right folks.